Edwards: From Here On Out, It's Me Versus Obama

Comments (45)

Tom wrote on January 4, 2008 1:05 AM:

Go John! The media was saying how our candidates can't finish in 3rd and make it out of Iowa. Well, Hillary just finished in 3rd, so she's done.

DTM wrote on January 4, 2008 1:06 AM:

I sense the press and pundits are skeptical about Edwards's argument.

For now.

But what happens if he actually beats Clinton in NH too?

Dusty wrote on January 4, 2008 1:06 AM:

Edwards couldn't say anything else. He had to aim his remarks to tossing Hillary under the bus.

dajafi wrote on January 4, 2008 1:14 AM:

Separately, The New York Times reports that aides to Hillary say that Bill Clinton will spend the next five days campaigning intensively in New Hampshire on her behalf.

Maybe he can change his name to "Hillary" and run in her stead. If one thing has become crystal-clear in this campaign, it's that she isn't a quarter of the politician he was/is. Sen. Clinton has many of the weaknesses of her husband (the triangulating, the thin skin--hers is worse, actually--the tendency to parse and obfuscate) but few of his tremendous strengths, like empathy and Bill's remarkable ability to explain complex policy matters in clear, simple language.

He helps her, certainly, but I think Iowa showed that he can't win it for her.

destor23 wrote on January 4, 2008 1:15 AM:

Edwards has been forced into saying this because the media refuses to tell the true story -- that his 2nd place finish was an amazing underdog performance.

Honestly, it's still a 3 person race with Edwards as the underdog and Edwards has to know that. But damn... his finish in Iowa was impressive and deserved better coverage. Edwards has to make this argument now.

Amazing how shabbily Edwards has been treated by the press... Rudy Giuliani lost to Ron Paul. Where are the eulogies for his campaign? Edwards comes in 2nd against all odds and they write the obit.

hello_world wrote on January 4, 2008 1:17 AM:

Edwards is trying his damnedest to shape the narrative and get out ahead of the headlines going into NH. Good for him, but at this point, he knows that he's a dead man walking. Edwards has no organization to speak of in NH, and he really shot his load in Iowa. If he was going to kill off Obama and claim the title of "Change Candidate", it would have had to have been in Iowa.

Obama passed his test with flying colors, and now Edwards can only push his borderline 2nd place finish in a state that he'd invested years in cultivating for his campaign. Barring a shock in NH, I'd be surprised if Edwards makes it to Nevada.

CanyonWren wrote on January 4, 2008 1:20 AM:

It is significant that Edwards edged out Hillary--the frontrunner with the most money. He has the least amount of money because he is not accepting PAC or lobbyist cash, he's had the worst coverage from the press, and he is constantly marginalized on blogs as the third-wheel.

That he is capitalizing on the fact that Hillary--the Establishment dem--is in last place is not surprising or unethical in this instance. She pretty much represents everything he is running against. Of course he wants to edge her out, it's the Presidential race. I for one think it is exhilarating that Americans get it that Edwards represents middle-class America, and that he knows the stakes we are up against.

I think it's funny that his speech is being made an issue: more of the same, move along, move along.

Anonymous wrote on January 4, 2008 1:20 AM:

[...] a contest between him and Obama.

I know, I'm insufferable.

js wrote on January 4, 2008 1:21 AM:

Edwards is done. Go home John with your wife and kids.

DTM wrote on January 4, 2008 1:22 AM:

To defend the press (something I rarely do), the fact that Obama beat Clinton by a higher percentage is even more impressive, and the fact that Obama beat Edwards is equally impressive to his win over Clinton.

Of course, Edwards is presenting himself as an underdog to Obama as well. But Edwards entered the race as the former VP nominee to Obama's junior Senator, one who also had proven support in Iowa. So by rights Obama should have been the underdog to Edwards.

So, it is fair for the press to treat the big story of the night as being Obama's win over both Edwards and Clinton. That said, I agree that Edwards rightly can argue that the second story of the night is him beating Clinton.

CanyonWren wrote on January 4, 2008 1:24 AM:

To hello world, you wrote:

"Edwards has no organization to speak of in NH, and he really shot his load in Iowa. If he was going to kill off Obama and claim the title of "Change Candidate", it would have had to have been in Iowa."

This simply is not true. He does have organization in NH, and did not "shoot his load" in Iowa. In fact, I'm going to attend one of many appearances while he's there. Iowa is not the end-all of the race--NH is extremely important. That McCain completely eschewed Iowa to campaign in NH underscores this point.

Edwards is doing great--and with half the money of the other candidates, I'd say he's probably pretty psyched.

hello_world wrote on January 4, 2008 1:25 AM:

What's interesting dajafi is that Hillary seemed to vacillate between running away from Bill, and using him. It's clear that they still haven't settled on how to use Bill Clinton in Hillary's campaign. It's also become equally clear that Bill Clinton is Hillary's largest positive within the Party once you get outside of the female, 62 and up crowd.

Quite the conundrum for the junior Senator from NY.

destor23 wrote on January 4, 2008 1:36 AM:

DTM I see your point but one could argue that Edwards' VP run in 2004 was really detrimental to him.

In 2004, Edwards moderated his ideas at Kerry's request. He was no firebrand. In 2004, he was part of a losing ticket that many hardcore Dems thought should have had an easy ride. In the really early days, Edwards had to convince people he'd changed since the first campaign.

Obama got uncritical support in 2004. That's when most of us learned he was a future presidential contender.

So... maybe Edwards really was the underdog...

opalheart wrote on January 4, 2008 1:40 AM:

Hey - Edwards better make it to Nevada! I'm waiting for him!

justin case wrote on January 4, 2008 1:44 AM:

Didn't Edwards accept public money? He's done, then.

DTM wrote on January 4, 2008 1:45 AM:

destor23,

Actually, I think it was more the other way around. For example, at the time, Edwards was advising Kerry to not do things like renounce for their Iraq War votes. See here:

http://www.thenation.com/blogs/campaignmatters?pid=253571

Of course Edwards record before 2004, including his war vote, was his own doing.

So, yes, I think many Democrats have some doubts about Edwards as a result of his history up through 2004. But I don't think that makes him an "underdog" in the ordinary sense of the term.

DTM wrote on January 4, 2008 1:47 AM:

Oh, and Edwards having less money to spend is in the same category (the fact that Obama has outraised him does not really show that Edwards was the "underdog" at the beginning).

hello_world wrote on January 4, 2008 1:55 AM:

@CanyonWren

I agree, Iowa is not the end-all. But campaign strategy becomes a factor. This is especially true for those trying to chase down better equipped front-runners.

McCain skipped Iowa because the religious conservatives that make up the GOP electorate there HATE him. His message won't play there at all and he knew this. But he is counting on doing well in New Hampshire. If McCain drops NH to Romney or some other upstart, the headlines will reflect this as it's widely known that McCain is counting on NH voters to give him momentum going forward.

Edwards chose to set up shop in Iowa, which was good to him in '04. In fact, he never really closed down shop there, and has been campaigning in the state ever since him and Kerry lost. While he didn't have the money that the other front-runners had, he has spent years in the state cultivating political connections. I give him credit for that, but in order to accomplish this Edwards basically gave up setting up a presence in NH, which is something that both Obama and Clinton have managed to do. To play catchup now in the 5 short days he has and connect to voters that he hasn't spent time connecting with is a tall order. Especially in a state like New Hamphire, which prides itself on getting to personally know the candidates. An even taller is trying to trying to get his message out there now with his limited financial resources. Edwards is going to be making quite a few appearances on the national shows like he is here to get some free press.

I give Edwards credit for doing his homework and planning long-term. I don't give him credit for lifting Kucinich's message and then taking steps to push him out the race. But in the end, Edwards didn't inspire enough people and didn't convince enough of them (like myself) that he was genuine.

baldheadeddork wrote on January 4, 2008 1:57 AM:

Edwards has been forced into saying this because the media refuses to tell the true story -- that his 2nd place finish was an amazing underdog performance.

Honestly, it's still a 3 person race with Edwards as the underdog and Edwards has to know that. But damn... his finish in Iowa was impressive and deserved better coverage. Edwards has to make this argument now.

Amazing how shabbily Edwards has been treated by the press... - destor23

Edwards hasn't gotten a fair shake from the press on some things, but there is a story here.

Edwards adopted the Carter model not long after 2004 and was in Iowa for years before Clinton or Obama. The press duly noted that Edwards had the best organization and how important that is to winning in Iowa. They reported his claim that he had the strongest support from veteran caucus participants, and how important they are in deciding races. They even reported his claim that he was running a 50 state campaign even as he was way behind everywhere else.

Look, Edwards was and is seventeen points out of first in NH. More than thirty out in Nevada, and over 20 behind the leader in SC - where he was born. It's not media bias to say Edwards had to win Iowa to have a chance in those races, that's just reality. Finishing a distant second in Iowa to Obama is going to cost him support in NH, and a distant third there will be the coup de grace for his campaign. Not because of the press, but because voters don't migrate to candidates who can't win.

If the press is paying more attention to the Democrats than the Republicans, it's because the R's are making MTV's Jackass look like Masterpiece Theater. The Republican party and the conservative movement is self-destructing before our eyes. They are morally and intellectually bankrupt, and they're about to cap it off with a bloody civil war between the theocons and the establishment R's who have run the party for the last 30 years. That's an interesting story in its own right, but it won't have a lot to do with choosing the next president.

Max wrote on January 4, 2008 2:06 AM:

I keep hearing this line "Edwards had half the money as the others".

Who's fault is that? Obama's support came largely from half a million individual donors, the largest number of individual contributors for any candidate. It's mostly grassroots money, from a bottom-up organization.

Obama's a guy worth just over a million up against Edwards, who is worth $54 million, had millions of dollars in 527 support, was the former VP candidate, and had been campaigning for three years in Iowa.

Edwards received a smaller percentage of the vote than in 2004, lost by a larger point spread, lost the self-declared "liberal" vote by double-digits, came in third among union households, all in a race with only three competitive contenders as opposed to at least four in 2004.

Looking at the details, I don't see how this can be spun as a win for Edwards. It's a loss. Clinton lost even more, but this is clearly a loss.

CalD wrote on January 4, 2008 2:12 AM:

DTM wrote: "To defend the press (something I rarely do), the fact that Obama beat Clinton by a higher percentage is even more impressive, and the fact that Obama beat Edwards is equally impressive to his win over Clinton."

ROTFLOL!!!

I'll say this for you, DTM. You're sure enough one to try to make the most of whatever you've got -- even if what you've got is one quarter of one percent.

Too funny.

Steve C wrote on January 4, 2008 2:23 AM:

Edwards should have realized this a long time ago. For a long time, it seemed that he was acting as Obama's surrogate, doing the dirty work to help the main candidate. It certainly helped bring Clinton down. And how did Obama reciprocate? By making references to trial lawyers and accusing Edwards of sleazy connections with 527s.

Now that Obama's won Iowa, Edwards has two candidates to chase, not one. It's probably too late now.

DTM wrote on January 4, 2008 2:29 AM:

CalD,

I'm honestly confused. My point was that Obama beat Clinton by a much higher percentage than Edwards beat Clinton. So while I agree that Edwards's margin over Clinton was relatively small, that seems to support my point.

nightslider wrote on January 4, 2008 2:39 AM:

Good grief the fat lady hasn't even begun to sing a tune and you fools are writing Obituaries, HMMMMM national polls has Oblapa on the bottom rung. One caucus state dosen't make a president, there are by all counts 49 more to go. Hillary is still in the mix folks no matter how many times you rub your legs together to produce your cricket chirps.

P.S there are far more people in N.H than in Iowa and to quote David Broder, a much more difficult task for the populist movement to make its case for CHANGE?

DTM wrote on January 4, 2008 2:49 AM:

nightslider,

Certainly Clinton still has a chance, but at some point she has to start winning states (and certainly must start doing better than third).

So, we shall see what happens in NH, her next opportunity to prove she is viable.

Keith wrote on January 4, 2008 3:17 AM:

If it's Edwards' angry message versus Obama's message of hope, I like Obama's chances. Obama looked and sounded presidential tonight--which just adds to the uphill battle Edwards is going to face over the next four days. Moreover, the fact that Obama has a verifiable MOVEMENT behind him (500,000+ donors is tangible populist support) cuts into Edwards claim to be the king of the populist. That being said, after 4 years in Iowa, pulling out a narrow victory against the Clinton machine means something.

Clinton is VERY much in this thing and even if she had lost by 10+ points, she's not walking away from this thing until the fat lady has sung and done an encore, and even then I think they will have to drag her kicking and screaming from the stage!

Great night for Obama. Thanks again to those Iowans who not only talked the talk, but walked the walk. They were the difference.

RaymondA wrote on January 4, 2008 3:32 AM:

You Edwards people seem to be more starry-eyed "hopemongers" than the Obama supporters you repeatedly have derided on this site. Every talking point you all are repeating above is bunk, but you want to believe in your heart that there is a genuine "angry workers'" candidate in the race and you want with all your heart to believe that the candidate you project your hopes onto is named John Edwards.

Here is the reality-based story of John Edwards, as opposed to the mythical story of John Edwards.

John Edwards has NOT received negative press coverage, but has rather flown under the radar, which is the only reason he did not come in third. The Hillary people, you might recall, made a deliberate decision not to lay a glove on Edwards, believing that it was more important that Obama lose than that they win. Remember the Bill Clinton Charlie Rose interview? Clinton lavished fulsome praise on Edwards, saying that he was qualified and Obama was not, because Edwards did not just have one year in the Senate but did "remarkably important" anti-poverty work at his think tank. Yea, right. That think tank funded alot of folks who were later to become staffers, and Edwards did not even work full time there, but rather felt he needed to supplement what he considered his paltry 54 million dollar fortune by taking the hedge fund job.

Where Edwards really has gotten a free pass is that he has changed his position on virtually every issue since his 6 year Senate term. The critic of free trade today voted for Most Favored Nation status for China, and supported NAFTA. Yes, he says he was wrong, and wrong on the Iraq war vote to boot, so remind me why we are all now supposed to believe in him. He is, I hate to say, the Democratic version of Romney. In 1998-2004, when Clintonian "DLC" moderation seemed the ticket to electability, he cast his lot wholeheartedly with the DLC crowd, taking about 80% of its positions. When Dean said he represented "the Democratic wing of the Democratic party," he was distancing himself from the 1998-04 version of Edwards.

Suddenly -- just as Romney changed from a moderate Repub so he could win the Mass governship -- Edwards took some time away from the Senate to sit in his think tank and hedge fund offices and contemplate what the formula for winning a Dem nominee ought to be in 2008, and he came up with anti-war, angry populist. This is just like Romney, formerly a supporter of gay rights, becoming the social conservative. Edwards would have become as much a joke as Romney had he not been able to fly under the radar screen for so long.

The real irony here is that Edwards and his supporters on this site and others like it were casting Edwards as the champion of the working man and Obama as the ivory tower intellectual. Funny thing, though. Most of the people who buy Edwards' act -- and it assuredly is an act -- are intellectuals like Paul Krugman. Edwards actually lost the union vote yesterday in Iowa. Obama won that with no significant union endorsements.

On top of all of this, Edwards staked his all on Iowa. He tried like hell in the spring to raise money from the "little people" whom he pretends to champion, and failed at it. Then he told a fat bald-faced lie that rightly turned of Markos over at the Daily Kos -- the lie being that he was going to take matching funds as a matter of principle. That claim was beyond laughable. It was shameless.

Trippi, to his credit, had trouble repeating the claim with a straight face, since he ran the first insurgency candidacy, Dean's, and knew that raising lots of grass roots money -- like Obama did this time -- was a key ingredient if one wanted to succeed in the primaries, but also in that weird transition period between the primaries and the general. So Edwards thought everyone was dumb and acted like his fundraising failure was a sign of his virtue.

What next? Oh yeah, he insulted our intelligence again with his ridiculous claim that he would "take away health insurance from members of Congress" if they did not pass a health bill by July 2008. That was like a parody of demagogy.

Then, to top it all off, Edwards made his closing argument against Obama that Obama was "in never-never land" to say that health care reform required some negotiation with the insurance and pharma companies. That sounded great, until you used the Google and found that this, too, was an Edwards flip flop, and not even from the 1988-2004 dark DLC Edwards days.

Edwards said (at a health care forum no less) in Feburary of 2007, that passing health care reform required giving a seat "at the table" to the insurance and pharma industries. But you see, then he thought his major opponent would be Hillary, and he thought it wise to remind folks of what she did wrong. When he saw Obama taking some of his thunder, he conveniently became AGAINST negotiating with the insurance and pharma industries.

The reality, folks, is that once Obama emerged as a very viable alternative to Hillary and started raising the small grass roots contributions that Edwards was counting on, Edwards became a candidate who could not say anything different from the two front runners, but could only say what he wished to say a little bit louder than they were saying it, and with more "jury appeal," meaning sappy emotionalism and melodrama (recall the "I'll take away Congress' health insurance by July of 08).

But Edwards still had burning ambition, so he decided to stay in the race and bank on the fact that some would not see Obama as viable because Obama is black. Edwards supporters conveniently ignore both John's and Elizabeth's subtle appeal to voters that "the Dems who have won in the last thirty years have had accents that sounded like mine (John's)" -- white Southern. Gee, how ennobling.

In February of 2007 I really liked Edwards, and gave him the benefit of the doubt for months. Then something clicked, and I moved him from my 2nd choice to my fifth choice.

No amount of spin will spare Edwards. He had a tremendous advantage over Obama going into this race, as a national VP nominee, and a near-resident of Iowa. Then he got his ass handed to him by Obama. Period. His candidacy will die in New Hampshire, and I say to him, Good Riddance.

P.S. The bastard did not even engage in the usual courtesy of congratulating the winner. Why do you all like him again?

Desider wrote on January 4, 2008 7:23 AM:

DTM,
Excellent nanny tone. Have you been practicing? "If you don't wise up, young lady...."

heretic wrote on January 4, 2008 7:35 AM:

hahahahaha! what a friggin' joke.

heretic wrote on January 4, 2008 7:41 AM:

Check your facts. Obama gets most of his money from large donors, just like HRC. A couple hundred thousand people buying keychains and tee-shirts on his Web site is not a grassroots movement. IA does not tell you anything about rest of the country. the one thing we know for sure is that the Dem who gets the plurality of votes in the IA caucus goes on to lose the GE. Its happened every time since '72. Which means Iowans don't have a clue.

awrbb wrote on January 4, 2008 8:18 AM:

nightslider:

Iowa (~ 3 million) has more than double the population of New Hampshire (~ 1.3 million).

john mccutchen wrote on January 4, 2008 8:36 AM:

They've still not recovered at MSNBC!

A goosebumps moment Eugene Robinson, WaPo

The Victory Speech that Greg Sargent doesn't want us to see

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yqoFwZUp5vc

bajsa wrote on January 4, 2008 8:53 AM:

I support Edwards but what he said is very wishful thinking and will almost certainly not hold true.

DTM wrote on January 4, 2008 8:59 AM:

Desider,

I'm not sure what a "nanny tone" is. But what I stated is simply a fact: to win the nomination Clinton has to start winning states at some point, because otherwise she won't have enough delegates. And as I said, she really needs to start doing better than third if she wants to maintain the idea that she is a viable contender.

So, she really wants to win NH. If she doesn't win NH, she really wants to place a solid second above Edwards. Because if she finishes third in NH behind both Obama and Edwards again ... what exactly would make anyone think she is viable?

bridoc wrote on January 4, 2008 9:12 AM:

I agree with Edwards that Hillary indeed lost and the voters made their desire for change crystal clear, but I'm sorry to say that he is being overly optimistic about his position in any other states. He likes to talk about how the other two candidates outspent him, but it is also true that he has basically lived in Iowa for the entire campaign, which obviously helped his chances there. That also means, however, that he doesn't have the presence anywhere else even close to the degree that Obama (and Hillary) have.

So yes, change has won, but the vehicle is going to be Obama, not Edwards. I like Edwards, and he gave a good speech, but he is eventually going to have to hang up the coat and throw his support behind Obama.

And Obama's speech...WOW. Just, WOW.

Genghis wrote on January 4, 2008 9:31 AM:

but he is eventually going to have to hang up the coat and throw his support behind Obama

At which point, I think it's game over for Clinton. To win, she would have to blow both of them out of the water, or else they could pretty easily combine forces against her when one drops out. As of last night, she is not blowing them out of the water.

daniel155 wrote on January 4, 2008 9:50 AM:

Edwards will never have a better opportunity than he did in Iowa. He actually lost ground. In 2004, he lost to Kerry 37-33 percent. Last night, he lost to Obama 38-30 despite being better funded and receiving more coverage than he did in 2004.

Obama has the money, the momentum, the novelty of being a new face and a decent organization. Clinton has money and organization to fall back on. From this point on, Edwards will have less money and less organization as the campaign moves into the other states. he is no longer a new face.

Unless he pulls off something spectacular in New Hampshire, his campaign will just slowly bleed to death.

Edwards is poised to repeat his 2004 campaign only this time no one is going to pick him as a running mate.

Genghis wrote on January 4, 2008 10:07 AM:

daniel155, I disagree with you only in that I think that Obama may pick Edwards as a running mate. Edwards is popular, he's an effective politician, he's got that southern accent that Dems love to have in their VPs, and the two seem to like each other. But most importantly, Obama may need all of Edward's supporters (and delegates) to beat Clinton, and the most assured way of getting them would be to put Edwards on the ticket.

(To be honest, I think that Edwards was a far better VP candidate in 04 than Kerry was a P candidate.)

Anonymous wrote on January 4, 2008 10:10 AM:

Max wrote on January 4, 2008 2:06 AM:
I keep hearing this line "Edwards had half the money as the others".

Who's fault is that? Obama's support came largely from half a million individual donors, the largest number of individual contributors for any candidate. It's mostly grassroots money, from a bottom-up organization.

Oh, boy have they got you bamboozled. Corporate lobbyists just love Obama.

Check out this graf from a Harpers piece on him:

On condition of anonymity, one Washington lobbyist I spoke with was willing to point out the obvious: that big donors would not be helping out Obama if they didn’t see him as a “player.” The lobbyist added: “What’s the dollar value of a starry-eyed idealist?”

http://www.harpers.org/archive/2006/11/0081275

Johnny2Bad wrote on January 4, 2008 10:13 AM:

Ooppps should've looked like this:

Max wrote on January 4, 2008 2:06 AM:
I keep hearing this line "Edwards had half the money as the others".

Who's fault is that? Obama's support came largely from half a million individual donors, the largest number of individual contributors for any candidate. It's mostly grassroots money, from a bottom-up organization.

Oh, boy have they got you bamboozled. Corporate lobbyists just love Obama.

Check out this graf from a Harpers piece on him:

On condition of anonymity, one Washington lobbyist I spoke with was willing to point out the obvious: that big donors would not be helping out Obama if they didn’t see him as a “player.” The lobbyist added: “What’s the dollar value of a starry-eyed idealist?”

http://www.harpers.org/archive/2006/11/0081275

Greg DeLassus wrote on January 4, 2008 12:34 PM:

I sense the press and pundits are skeptical about Edwards's argument.

Not just the press and pundits. Count me in the group that is more than a little skeptical about the Clinton-is-finished storyline. I would love to think that were true, but it seems like a stiff dose of wishful-thinking to my mind.

But what happens if he actually beats Clinton in NH too?

Well, sure that would be bad for Clinton, but also 1) rather unlikely and 2) still not truly fatal to Clinton. Like I said in the other post, if Clinton loses IA & NH, then she will surely also lose SC (where she is already behind) but win NV. Meanwhile, the press want the horserace to continue because it is much more fun for them to cover a real squeaker than the snowballing of one candidate to an early and surefooted victory. As such, if she loses three of the early four, you can be sure that plenty of columnists will dust off their old "comeback kid" storylines which they wrote for Bill Clinton back in 1992 and she will move into Super Tues with the wind at her back.

In order to be really sure that she is finished, we need to look to beat her on Super Tues. Right now she is ahead in the polls in every Super Tues state except IL. As such, us not-Clinton folks have a lot of work ahead of us, and the worst thing we could do would be to grow presumptuous about the long term significance of a few early Clinton-defeats.

Greg DeLassus wrote on January 4, 2008 12:45 PM:

the fact that Obama has outraised him does not really show that Edwards was the "underdog" at the beginning

Indeed. Obama and Edwards started out financially on an even footing. Obama raised buckets of money; Edwards did not. That does not make Edwards the "underdog." It just makes him the less competitive candidate.

Incidentally, the idea that Obama's success is the result of PACS and corporate interests is easily disproven. Simply look at the breakdowns of the financing of each (Obama and Edwards) on Opensecrets.org and you will see that Obama has more small contributors than Edwards and is actually less reliant on large moneyed interests than is Edwards for his campaign funds.

phil james wrote on January 4, 2008 12:50 PM:

It's simply gone from the meme of the all-but-inaugurated Hillary to the all-but inaugurated Obama. It's still a 3-way race with Hillary hurt badly in Iowa but none of the 3 is done.

Greg DeLassus wrote on January 4, 2008 1:07 PM:

It's still a 3-way race with Hillary hurt badly in Iowa but none of the 3 is done.

Definitely not. Every time I read a post which runs "_____ is toast" I have to wonder whether they are following the same election which I am watching. These three are all still in the hunt at present.

colonpowwow wrote on January 5, 2008 12:32 PM:

Correction:

Edwards is toast.

This is a race between Obama and Hillary like it's been since Obama entered the race. What state is Edwards going to win?

Please. Name One! Maybe No. Carolina for a change? Okay. Name Two.

Post a comment

Name:
Email Address:
URL:
	Remember personal info?
Comments: (you may use HTML tags for style)